Volume 103 — United States Reports

<p>1. Where a railroad company is, for the purpose of constructing and repairing its road, invested with the powers and privileges and subjected to the obligations contained in' certain enumerated sections of the charter of another company which was exempt from taxation, — Held-, that the grant does not include immunity from taxation.</p> <p>2. Railroad Companies v. Gaines (97 U. S. 697) and Morgan v. Louisiana (93 id 217) reaffirmed and applied to this case.</p>

Held: without dissent, that a professor in the State university, appointed for a stated term with a fixed salary,' was not a public officer in such a sense as prevented his employment from creating a contract relation between himself and the regents. *10 It is hard to distinguish that case in principle 'from the one before us. .

Held: That the suit can be maintained, the right of action not being limited by the statute to a personal representative of the deceased appointed in New'Jersey and amenable-to, her jurisdiction. 2. That distribution of moneys recovered by C. from A may be enforced by the courts of New York in the manner prescribed í>y that statute. *12 Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York.

Held: or of the extent of his 'debts, or that he had any purpóseun the execution of the deed except to induce her to conseñfcto the marriage. -It is not at all likely, judging from the .ordinary motives governing men, that whilst' pressing his suit with her,, and offering to settle property upon her to obtain her consent to the marriage, he informed her that he was insolvent, and would, by the deed he proposed to execute,…

<p>1. The owner of tie equity of redemption has an insurable interest equal to the value of the buildings on the land. .</p> <p>2. A party having a mechanic's lien on buildings by him erected on land then covered by mortgage hag an insurable interest, limited only by their value and the amount of his claim. His discontinuance of his suit to enforce the lien after their destruction is not matter of .defence to his action on the policy.</p>

<p>An assistant treasurer of the United States to whom, without prepayment therefor, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue furnishes for sale and distribution sealed packages of adhesive stamps, is not entitled to commissions or extra compensation-for selling them.</p>

States for the District of Connecticut. The parties to this action having stipulated in writing that it should be tried by the court, the following facts were found by it to have been proven: — On or about Aug. 12, 1875, the firm of S. A. Castle & Co., of the city of New York, consisting of Samuel A. Castle, Rufus E. Hitchcock, and Henry S.

<p>1. Lands in Kansas held in fee--simple by a half-blood member of the tribe of Sae and Fox Indians of the Mississippi under a patent from the United States, issued pursuant to the seventeenth article of the treaty of Feb. 18 1867 (15 Stat. 495), are not exempt from State taxation..</p> <p>2. The Kansas Indians (5 Wall. 787) distinguished.</p>

Held: and providing that on his paying in instalments $80 on each share of $100, a certificate as for full-paid stock should be issued to him by the company, and on his failure to pay an instalment of $20 per .share on or before a specified date his claim to the new stock should be forfeited, and such forfeited shares divided ratably among the other stockholders who had paid that instalment.

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of-the court.</p>

Held: That the State court having first acquired jurisdiction of the subject-matter, its decree was a bar to the further prosecution of the suit against A. and the hank. 2. That A. represented all the parties who, pending the foreclosure proceedings, acquired through'him an interest in or a charge on the mortgaged land, and that B., although not a party to them, is bound by the decree therein rendered.

Held: that the liability of the sureties was limited to the stamps delivered to him before the last-mentioned date. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Western District of Tennessee. The facts are stated in the

This is; an action upon .the warrants of the county of Monroe, Arkansas, which were drawn, by the clerk of the county upon its treasurer, in favor of one Frank Gallagher, and transferred by him to the plaintiff. The following is a copy of one of them.

Held: and at such election the judges holding the same shall require proof of the payment of such tax before recording the vote of any person offering to vote at such election, and a majority of all the legal votes cast at said election shall determine the question for or against such ordinance. “ Sect. 9.

<p>1. A dealer in tobacco, who is assessed upon his sales thereof when it is in a bonded warehouse, is not liable to be taxed for the revenue stamps required to be affixed thereto before the removal thereof, unless they were at the time of such sales so affixed, whereby they entered into the value of the tobacco and formed a part of the price thereof.</p> <p>2. It is error to instruct touching the law applicable to facts of which there is no evidence.</p>

Held: the facts were found by a referee. 2. Sect. 700 of the Revised Statutes is the only enactment providing for the . review hére of a civil cause where an issue of fact has been tried in the Circuit Court otherwise than by a jury. 3. The Practice Act of Missouri declares that an issue of fact in any action may, upon the written consent of the parties, be referred.

<p>Ebbob to the Supreme Court of the State of New York.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>1. The failure to inscribe or to reinscribe a mortgage of lands in Louisiana does noPaffect its validity as'against the parties thereto.or their heirs.</p> <p>2. To secure the payment of his note, A., the owner of lands, executed a mortgage of them, which was duly inscribed, but never reinscribed. He subsequently conveyed them to B., who contracted to pay the note as part of the purchase-money, and, to secure it and-the remainder of the purchase-money, granted a mortgage of them with vendor’s privilege, in the act of sale to him, which was in due time inscribed and reinscribed. After the note was overdue, B. paid interest thereon from time to timé; and, to compel him to perform his contract, A. brought suit, which was pending at the time that he filed his bill of foreclosure against B. and C., the latter being the transferee of ■ the note and mortgage executed by A. Held,. 1. That the pre-. scription as to the note was, against A. and B., interrupted by the payment of the interest, and was suspended during the continuance of that suit. 2. That, notwithstanding the lapse of moré than ten years since the inscription of that mortgage, C. is entitled to priority of payment out of the proceeds of the sale of the lands.</p> <p>3. A party, after contesting, by prolonged litigation, a claim against him, is not entitled to the benefit of aft. 2652 of the Civil Code of Louisiana, and cannot cancel it by paying .what it cost the party to whom it was transferred.</p>

Held: that inasmuch as the bonds, though fraudulent in their inception, were put upon the market and sold in a foreign country to a people largely unacquainted with the English language, a case is presented which justifies the court in treating the owners of them as purchasers for value and in good faith, and entitled to relief accordingly. 2.

Held: and was attended not only.by the city and county officials mentioned, but also by the plaintiff as architect of the city, and Egan as architect for the county. They had their respective plans there, and explained them to the officials in attendance.

Held: That he was not entitled to recover. 2. That evidence of the value of his services in making the estimate was properly excluded, inasmuch as he failed to show that they had been rendered at the instance of thé defendants. Error to the* Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. The facts are stated in the

Held: That the act does not restrict the county to a' single subscription. 2. That the power to subscribe is general, limited only by the subscription of $100,000 to the stock of any one company. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The facts are stated in the

Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168 (1880), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the question whether or not the United States House of Representatives may compel testimony. Hallet Kilbourn was subpoenaed to testify before a Special Committee established by the House of Representatives to investigate the bankruptcy of Jay Cooke & Company. Though he appeared, he refused to answer any questions and did not tender requested documents. John G. Thompson, Sergeant-At-Arms for the House, took Kilbourn into custody. Kilbourn continued to refuse to testify and provided no explanation for his refusal. The House resolved that Kilbourn was in contempt and should be held in custody until he agreed to testify and produce the requested documents.

Held: that, when in any suit mentioned therein there is a controversy wholly between citizens of different States, which can be fully determined as between them, then either one or more of the plaintiffs or the defendants actually interested in such controversy may, on complying with the requirements of the statute, remove the entire suit. 2.

Held: though both were actually passed at the same session of Congress; and if the later act is in conflict with the older, so that they cannot be reconciled, the last must prevail.

Held: That the statutes being in force when the charter of the company was granted, are, in legal effect, a part thereof. 2. That a suit having been previously instituted in a court of Louisiana by citizens of the latter State against the company, A. was, on being admitted a party thereto, entitled, by reason of his citizenship, to remove it to the Circuit Court of the United States.

Blake v. United States, 103 U.S. 227 (1880), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court concerning the removal power under the Appointments Clause. Justice John Marshall Harlan delivered the opinion of the Court: If the power of the President and Senate, in this regard, could be constitutionally subjected to restrictions by statute (as to which we express no opinion), it is sufficient for the present case to say that Congress did not intend by that section to impose them. After Abraham Lincoln was assassinated, his Vice-President Andrew Johnson became President. The new president was openly hostile to Congress' Reconstruction policies, and Congress responded by imposing substantial restrictions on the President's removal power, including the controversial Tenure of Office Act.

<p>This court cannot, by mandamus, compel an inferior court to reverse its decision made in the exercise of its legitimate jurisdiction.</p>

Appeals from tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for tbe Eastern District of New York. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>1. This court concurs in opinion with the Supreme Court of Illinois that sect. 6 of art. 9 of the Constitution of that State of 1848 (infra, p. 257) imposes a limitation on the power of the legislature to authorize taxation by the municipal corporations or the political subdivisions of the State.</p> <p>2. A congressional township is by the laws of Illinois merely a corporation for school purposes. It cannot, therefore, subscribe for stock in a railroad company, and issue its bonds in payment, nor levy a tax upon persons and property within its jurisdiction, to aid in building railroads.</p>

Held: that, in a court of the United States, there can be-no recovery orí the contract. *262 Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The facts aré stated in the

Held: that the suit must he dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana.

Held: that the amount in controversy being sufficient, the suit was removable, under the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137, 18 Stat., pt. 3, p. 470. 3. The citizenship of the parties need not be averred in the petition for removal where it is shown by the record. Arpead from tbe Circuit Court of tbe .United States for tbe District of Louisiana. The facts are stated in the

<p>In addition to the tax of one and one-half per cent, authorized by sect. 2, art. 3, of her charter, the city of Louisiana, Mo., may, by mandamus, be compelled to levy, assess, and collect a special tax, not exceeding one -per cent, per annum, to pay a judgment rendered against her, whereon an execution has been issued and returned nidia bona.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United. States for the Northern District of Ohio.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>. The rule requiring a steamer to keep out of the way of a sailing-vessel is equally imperative upon the latter to keep her course; and where, by her unnecessary deviation therefrom, a collision is rendered unavoidable, the steamer is not liable therefor.</p>

<p>Error to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that their decision being by that law final, he was properly excluded from the panel. 4. Against the objection of the prisoner, jurors were interrogated by the United States as to their belief that the practice of polygamy is in obedience to the divine will and command. Held, that the objection was properly overruled. 6. This court cannot re-examine questions of fact upon a writ of error. 6.

Held: That if, when the grant was made, there was a tract well known as Hart’s Location, lying easterly and in the vicinity of the land granted, and if it had a westerly boundary to-whieh the granted tract could, by any reasonable possibility, extend, then Hart’s Location was a monument which controlled the courses and distances of the survey; and this, though the western boundary of Hart’s location had never been…

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas.</p> <p>■The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that they were not entitled to recover for the use and occupation of the church premises, as no claim therefor was made in their bill, and the defendants derived no pecuniary advantage therefrom. 2.

Held: that the controversy, not being divisible, nor wholly between citizens of different States, could.not be removed into the Circuit Court of the United States. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Massachusetts. .The facts are stated in the

Held: That the producing capacity of the distillery was not in íaw reduced to 207.45 bushels per day until May 4. 2. That for the beer distilled from the 415.96 bushels of grain mashed,April 30 and May 1 A. was not liable to be taxed as for material used by him in excess of the producing capacity of his distillery on May 2 and 3. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Ohio.

Held: that the statute is in conflict with the commerce clause of the Constitution of the United States, and void. 3. Commerce among the States is not free whenever a commodity is, by reason of its foreign growth or manufacture, subjected by State legislation to discriminating regulations or burdens. 4. Welton v. State of Missouri ( 91 U. S. 276 ) and County of Mobile v. Kimball (102 id. 691) cited and approved.

On tbe lltb of March, 1876, tbe General Assembly of Lornisiana passed an act, No. 72, entitled “An Act governing tbe manner in 'which cotton-press receipts, warehouse receipts, or tbe receipts of other custodians of any property whatevef, shall be issued, in all cases where such receipts shall or may be used or pledged as collateral security for money advanced or borrowed on faith of tbe property therein specified, and governing the delivery and disposal of tbe property for…

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Dis triet of Louisiana.</p>

Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370 (1881), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the Fifteenth Amendment invalidated provisions of state constitutions limiting suffrage to whites, and other privileges restricted to voters cannot be restricted based on race.

Held: constituted a part. Eight years after the sale he brought this suit to rescind the contract upon the ground,of fraud, all the particulars of which were as well known to him when the sale was made as at any subsequent tjme. Held, that his right to relief was barred by his laches and by the Statute of Limitations. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Florida.

Held: that they are prima facie binding on the corporation according to the terms and conditions expressed on their .face, and that, in an action on them, or the coupons thereto attached, the plaintiff need not aver such performance. 2. Want of such performance, when in any case available to defeat a recovery, must be set up by the corporation. 3.

<p>Error to tbe Supreme Court of tbe State of Tennessee,</p> <p>Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.</p>

This is an action by George B. Ellery against the town of Seven Hickory, 111., to recover upon certain bonds issued by it March 1, 1872, which recite that they are issued “ in pursuance of authority conferred by an act of the General Assembly of the State of Illinois, entitled An Act to incorporate the Tuscola, Charleston, and Vincennes Railroad Company,’ approved March 7, 1867, and An Act to amend the foregoing act,’ approved March 25, 1869, and of an election of the legal…

. Tbis was an action by Baldwin to recover of tbe St. Joseph and Denver City Railroad Company, or its successor in interest, damages for entering upon bis land in Nebraska, and appropri.ating, in tbe construction of its road, a strip two hundred feet in width and two hundred rods in length.

Held: that they were, within the meaning of the tariff acts, manufactures of cotton, and, as such, subject to the duty imposed by the first section of the act of March 3,1865, c. 80. 13 Stat. 491 . 2.

<p>1. Where a suit is brought, not to enforce a claim or lien upon property, but to cancel a purely personal contract, the Circuit Court cannot acquire jurisdiction of the defendant unless he appear or there be personal service of process-upon him within the district. If he is an infant, the decree against . him is void on its face, the record showing affirmatively the non-service of process, although a guardian ad litem was appointed for him in his absence.</p> <p>2. The necessity for such service on the infant is not obviated by the State statute requiring his general guardian “ to appear for and represent his ward in all legal suits and proceedings,'unless when another person is appointed for the purpose as guardian or next friend.”</p>

Held: that it must be disregarded in the consideration of the case here. 2. The Statute of Limitations is a bar to a suit brought four years after a bank in South Carolina had permanently suspended specie payments, by a holder of its notes to enforce the individual liability of the stockholders. 8. Carrol v. Green ( 92 U. S. 609 ) and Godfrey v. Terry (97 id. 171) cited and approved.

Held: that the general assets of his estate are not bound for the debts of the firm which were contracted subsequently to his death. 2. ' The profits arising from that interest were, pursuant to the will, paid from time to time, the firm being then free from debt, and its capital undiminished. It afterwards became bankrupt. Held, that the legatees receiving them were not liable to the assignee in bankruptcy therefor.

Held: enjoyed,- and possessed by either of said original corporations prior to their said consolidation, fully and effectually, to all intents and purposes, and to be entitled to have and hold all the rights, powers, and privileges conferred, or to be hereafter conferred, by law upon railroad corporations, *449 organized under the act entitled An Act to provide for a general system of railroad incorporations,’ approved…

Held: and a pin, e, in each of the enlargements or cross-pieces which fit in the slots in the short arms d d of the rock shaft G, by which the head is moved back and forth.

<p>1. The common-law rule is in force in'Michigan, that the resignation of a public officer is not complete until the proper authority accepts it, or does something tantamount thereto, such as to appoint a successor.</p> <p>2. After making a return to the alternative mandamus sued out against him by</p> <p>a judgment creditor of a township, the township supervisor cannot set up the non-service of any notice in the cause.</p>

Thompson v. United States is the name of several United States Supreme Court cases: Thompson v. United States, 604 U.S. ___ (2025): A statute that prohibits knowingly making a false statement to influence the FDIC’s action on a loan does not criminalize statements that are misleading but not false. Thompson v. United States, 103 U.S. 480 (1881) Thompson v. United States, 142 U.S. 471 (1892) Thompson v. United States, 155 U.S. 271 (1894) Thompson v. United States, 246 U.S. 547 (1918) Thompson v. United States, 343 U.S. 549 (1952) Thompson v. United States, 400 U.S. 17 (1970) Thompson v. United States, 444 U.S. 248 (1980)

Held: that; on his entering in the Cir cuit Court, within the period prescribed by that act, the transcript of the record, that court acquired, jurisdiction of the suit; and that all subsequent proceedings of the State court therein are absolutely void. 2.

Held: that the Circuit Court properly granted the prayer of the bill. 3. The ruling in French, Trustee, v. Hay ( 22 Wall. 250 ) reaffirmed. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. The facts are stated in the

Held: that a decree against them does not estop the creditors of the old company, who were secured by that mortgage, from asserting their right to subject the county bonds to the payment of their claims, the proceeds of the sale of thé mortgaged property being insufficient for the purpose. ApPEAL'from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois. ' .

Held: that the bill need not negative the failure of the city, but that such failure, if it existed, must be set up as matter of defence. Appeal from the Circuit Court of tbe United States for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The facts are stated in the

Held: that this is not a final decree, and that an appeal does not lie therefrom. Motion to dismiss an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana. The facts are stated in the

<p>Error to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana. Motion to advance.</p>

Columbia. Alexander, on the fifth day of January, 1875, filed his bill in the court below against Dennison and others, commissioners of the District of Columbia, hnd the First National Bank, to restrain the sale of real estate in the city of Washington which the commissioners had advertised to satisfy the amount due for improvements made by the board of public works.- The certificate of indebtedness issued by that board and transferred to the bank, was for less than $400 and…

Held: that the special statute is not in violation of the provisions of sect. 8, art. 1, or of sect. 7, art. 11, of the Constitution of Tennessee of 1834, infra, p. 525. 2. A county, having lawful authority, issued its bonds in payment of its subscription to a railroad company.

■This was a libel filed by Shirley. and others, owners of the steamboat “ Sabine.” They allege, in substance, that between two and three o’clock of the morning of Feb. 11, 1872, while she was descending the Mississippi River about twelve miles above New • Orleans, the steamer “ Richmond ” ran into and sunk her; that the collision was owing entirely to the gross and culpable negligence of the officers and pilot of the “ Richmond;” and that the libellants suffered damages , to…

Held: that her testimony is not sufficient to impeach the mortgage. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Kansas. The facts are stated in the

<p>A fault instituted to try the title of a party to a State office, whereof he is the incumbent, and whereto he was, by the constituted authorities of the State, duly declared to be elected pursuant to her laws, cannot be removed from one of her courts into the Circuit Court of the United States on his petition, setting forth that, by reason of bribery and threats, colored persons who were qualified to vote at the election, and who would have voted for him, were deterred from voting, and that the returning board rejected the votes of the parishes where such illegal practices prevailed.</p>

Held: that the liability of the county and its sureties upon the supersedeas bond is limited to such damages as resulted from a delay in the sale of the lands, and does not include the balance remaining unpaid of the decree after applying thereto the proceeds of the sale, nor the interest thereon which accrued pending the appeal. Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois.

<p>1. Warrants issued by a county in Arkansas are not negotiable paper in the sense of the law merchant.</p> <p>2. Where the county court has fixed, -by its order, a time for calling in the warrants for redemption, classification, or other lawful purpose, the holder, who neglects or refuses to present them, 83 required by the order, and the notice thereof given, conformably to the statute, has no right of action against the county to enforce the payment of them.</p>

Held: that he was entitled, under the act of March 3, 1875, c. 137 (18 Stat., pt. 3, p. 470), to remove the suit to the Circuit Court of the United States. 2. A decree was rendered by the State court against A. by default, although he was not summoned, nor served with a copy of the bill or any notice of the pendency of the suit.

This is an action in the nature of a writ of quo warranto instituted by the State of California in the Superior Court for Sacramento County to determine the right of Ashburner to hold the office of member of the board of commissioners to “ manage the Yosemite Yalley and Mariposa Big Tree Grove.”.

Held: therefore, that the bonds of the “municipal corporation of the inhabitants of the town of Moberly,” in the county of Randolph, in the State of Missouri, dated May 1, 1872, and reciting that they are “issued in pursuance of an election held in said town on the twenty-sixth day of March, A. i). 1872, to decide whether said town should purchase and donate to the St. Louis, Kansas City, and Northern Railway Company two…

Held: that the patent issued upon the last survey is not rendered invalid because, in addition to lands not covered -by the prior patent, it purports to convey those which were so covered. A A pleading which would be cured by verdict, is good after a finding by thé court to which the trial of the issue was submitted by the stipulation of the parties.

Held: that he was entitled to recover. Apjpeal from the Court of Claims. The facts are stated in the

<p>Laces, cigar ribbons, galloons, and braids made substantially of silk, although ' . cotton forms a part thereof, were subject to a duty of sixty per cent ad valorem, under sect. 8 of the act of June 30, 1864, c. 171. 13 Stat. 181.</p>

Held: that the right to enter and use them was complete as soon as they were actually appropriated under the authority of that act, but that the title to them did not, without, the consent of the owner, vest in the State until just compensation was made to him therefor. - 2. The decisions of the Supreme Court of Indiana upon the point cited and examined. 3.

Held: that the application should not have been' granted, and the order of the Circuit Court remanding the cause was proper. Appeal from tbe Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Ohio. The facts are stated in the

Held: that the conveyance and investment were protected by the law, and.that no account could be demanded except for the stock and its dividends. ft Where minors were interested in a manufacturing establishment, as beneficiaries under a deceased partner, and the administrator, who was also their guardian, without any fraud, but with entire good faith, allowed the business to be continued by the surviving partners for…

Held: that this court lias jurisdiction to determine whether the amendment, as construed by the court below and applied to'the facts of the case, impairs the obligation of a contract. Held, further, that the act is in conflict with that amendment, inasmuch as it authorized the creation of a new debt on a new consideration, in excess of the prescribed amount, and that the bonds are void.

Held: that the act withdraws from the board all authority to act in the premises, and that the obligation &f no contract is thereby impaired, inasmuch as there was no previous' acceptance by bondholders of the proposition to fund, and no consideration had passed. Appeal from the Circuit Court of ,the United States for the District of Louisiana. The facts are stated in the

Held: at which the qualified voters assented to an issue of bonds in payment of the donation previously voted. The statutes which we have mentioned conferred, as we have shown in Harter v. Kernochan, ample authority upon the township to issue bonds in payment of the donation voted, the qualified electors assenting thereto at a regular or special town meeting.

<p>1. The directors of a corporation are subject to the obligations which the law imposes upon trustees and agents. They cannot, therefore, with respect to the same matters, act for themselves and for it, nor occupy a position in conflict with its interests.</p> <p>2. Hence, a court will refuse to give effect to arrangements by directors of a railroad company to secure, at its expense, undue advantages to themselves, by forming, as an auxiliary to it, a new company, with the understanding that they or some of them shall become stockholders in it, and then that valuable contracts shall be given to it by the railroad company, in the profits of which they, as such stockholders, shall share.</p> <p>8, The contract entered into July 16, 1868, by the Union Pacific Railroad Company, by direction of the executive committee of the board of directors, with Godfrey and Wardell {infra, p. 652), which the latter assigned, without consideration, to a new company, in which a majority of the stock was taken by six directors of the old company, declared to be fraudulent and void.</p>

<p>1. Under the patent laws in force in 1866, letters-patent became absolutely void on the surrender of them.</p> <p>2. The fifty-third section of the act of July 8, 1870, c. 230 (16 Stat. 205; Rev. Stat., sect. 4916), declares that the surrender “shall take effect upon the issue of the amended patent.” Semble, that the effect of an adverse decision on_the title of the patentee to the invention would be as fatal to the original letters as to his right to a reissue.</p>

<p>Ekrok to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado.</p> <p>Motion to set aside submission.</p>

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.</p>

Held: That the City Bank, in receiving and acknowledging the drafts and bills of lading, with the accompanying instructions, became the agent of C. in the business which it had undertaken. 2. That whether, in discharging its duties as such agent, it exercised reasonable diligence and care, is a question for the jury, which the court below should not have withdrawn from them and decided.

<p>In a suit for partition, the value of the undivided part in controversy, and not of the.lands, determines the appellate jurisdiction of this court.</p>

<p>The deputy-governor of the branch at Milwaukee of " The National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers ” was not permitted by its by-laws to contract for or receive, beyond his stated salary, compensation for services, which, at the request of the building committee of the board of managers, he rendered in the erection of the new buildings for the home at that place.</p>

Held: that they are subject to the duty of ten' per cent ad valorem prescribed by schedule M of sect. 2504 of the Revised Statutes, as paintings not otherwise provided for. 2.

<p>Error to tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States- for the Southern District of New York.</p> <p>Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion of tbe court.</p>

Held: that the act was duly and constitutionally passed. 2. The word “inhabitants,” where it occurs in the first section of the act, means • legal voters. 3.

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Held: that the ship and the tug, being in contemplation of law but one vessel under steam, were ¡bound to keep out of the way of the schooner, and are liable for the damages which she sustained. 2. The form of decree sanctioned in The Alabama and the Gamecock ( 92 U. S. 695 ) approved. •Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for tbe Southern District of New York. The facts are stated in the

Held: that- A.’s acquiescence in the adjustments precluded the maintenance of the suit. Appeal from the Court of Claims. The facts are stated in the

<p>1. In 1870, the Board of Trustees of Colored Schools for the District of Columbia had authority to employ an',architect to prepare the plans and specifications for a school-house in Washington, and superintend its construction, and could, as the agent of the District, bind it to pay him for his services.</p> <p>2. The disallowance of his claim by the board of audit constituted by the act of June 20, 1874, c. 337 (18 Stat., pt. 3, p. 116), does not. bar his right of recovery.</p> <p>3 The corporation which the act of Peb. 21,1871, e. 62 (16 Stat. 419), created by the name of the District of Columbia succeeded to the property and liabilities of the corporations which were thereby abolished. .</p>

<p>The act of the legislature of Nebraska approved Eeh. 2,1875, entitled “An Act authorizing School District Number 56, of Richardson County, to issue bonds for the purpose of erecting a school building, procuring a site therefor, and for setting apart a fund to pay the same,” is void, it being in conflict with sect. 1, art. 8, of the Constitution of that State of 1866-67, which declares that “ the legislature shall pass no special act conferring corporate powers.”</p>

<p>Appeals from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern’ District of New York.</p>

<p>A State statute abolishing imprisonment for debt' does not, within the meaning of the Constitution, impair the obligation of contracts which were entered into before its enactment.</p>

Held: That the company has no claim to compensation other than sea postage for carrying them in vessels which had not been accepted by the Postmaster-General. 2. That it is entitled to recover, under the.contract of Aug. 23,1873, for services performed, pursuant to its terms, in vessels which he had, under the contract of Oct. 16, 1866, accepted. 3.

Motion to strike from the transcript the depositions and oral testimony taken in the progress of the cause in the several courts below.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Motion to dismiss an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District -of Michigan. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>Appeal from the Supreme Court of the Territory of Utah.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

<p>1. The grant made to Iowa by the act of May 15,1856, c. 28 (11 Stat. 9), to aid in the construction of a railroad from Davenport to Council Bluffs, is in prcesenti, and, with certain exceptions therein specified, it vested in the State the title to every section of public land designated by odd numbers for six miles in width on each side of the road, when the line thereof should be definitely fixed.</p> <p>¿. The' act authorized the State, 'subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, to select, within the limit of fifteen miles of the road, land in alternate sections equal in amount to that which, within the six-mile limit, had been sold or otherwise appropriated by the United States. Qutzre, Does the right to any particular section or part of section, beyond the six-mile limit, vest.in the State before the selection of it has been reported to and approved by the .proper officer.</p> <p>3. After the lands had been duly certified to the State or to the railroad company, to which she transferred them, the legal title thereto was subject to be defeated only by the United States, should there be a breach of any condition "annexed to the grant, and it was not divested by a change of the location of part of the line of road authorized by the act of June 2, 1864, c. 103 (13 Stat. 95), although they are not situate within.twenty miles of the relocated line. Subsequent settlers could, therefore, - acquire no right thereto under the pre-emption or the homestead laws.</p>

Held: That the vote of the people at the last election recognized the original bonds as binding and subsisting obligations, and that the county is therefore estopped from setting up that they were invalid because voted for at an election called by- the board of supervisors instead of by the county court. 2.

<p>The ruling in Jerome v. McCarter (21 Wall. 17), that where, by reason of the changed circumstances of the case, or of the parties, or of the sureties on á supersedeas bond, so that the security, which at the time it was taken was sufficient, does not continue to be so, this court will, on proper application, so order and adjudge as justice may require, — reaffirmed, and applied to this case.</p>

Motion to dismiss an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana, united with a motion to affirm the decree.

Held: that, the mortgage being a mere security, the terms of the bonds must control in determining when the principal is payable. 2. Overdue and unpaid interest coupons do not of themselves make the bond to which they are attached dishonored paper. Cromwell v. County of Sac ( 96 U. S. 51 ) cited and approved, and Parsons v. Jackson (99 id. 434) distinguished. 3.

Motion to dismiss an appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Illinois, with which is united a motion to affirm.

<p>1. The settlement of lands by a man npon his wife is not invalid, if the rights of existing creditors are not thereby impaired.</p> <p>2. A bill of r.eview is the appropriate mode of correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, and it was in this ease filed in time, less than two years having elapsed since the original decree was passed.</p> <p>8. The court will not consider errors assigned by the appellee.</p>

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Colorado.</p>

Held: had been substantially complied with, and there was nothing in Falconett’s testimony militating against plaintiff’s right to recover.” The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff, on which judgment was rendered. To reverse this judgment this writ .of error is brought.

<p>Where there has been no newly discovered evidence, a bill in equity will not lie to cancel a contract or enjoin a judgment thereon, where the complainant, against whom it was rendered, sets up as grounds of relief matters which he had full opportunity to plead in the action at law.</p>

<p>Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

Appear from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Connecticut. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

<p>Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiana.</p> <p>The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.</p>

ORIGINAL. Mr. Fillmore Beall presented the petition of the Des Moines and Minneapolis Railroad Company, duly verified by affidavit, and moved for a rule on the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Iowa, Northern Division, to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not issue.

Appear from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of New Jersey. This is a suit in equity by George Crouch against William Roemer to prevent the infringement by the latter of reissued letters-patent No. 4289, granted March 7,1871, to the complainant for an improvement in straps for shawls. Among the defences set up by the respondent was the want of novelty and the prior public use of the invention described in the letters.

Held: that as the book-keeper was the agent of the bank, his knowledge of the transaction could not be imputed to A., and that the suit could not be maintained. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Missouri. The facts are stated in the

Held: that the legislature had the constitutional power to pass the act, and that the 'bonds were thereby validated. 2. The court declines to follow Horton v. Town of Thompson ( 71 N. Y. 513 ), in which the same point is involved. 3. County of Warren v. Marcy ( 97 U. S. 96 ) affirmed. Error to' tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for tbe Soutbern District of New York.

Held: that as, by the terms of the. petition and the proceedings of the judge thereon, the construction of the road was a condition precedent to the exercise by the commissioners of their power to make thé subscription, they, being merely agents of the town, had no authority to act in the premises until that condition was performed. 2.

Held: that the respective rights and obligations of tbe parties under the contract were fixed when A., within the five years, duly notified B. to make the purchase at the expiration of them, and that, on tendering to B. within á reasonable time thereafter a proper deed for the lands. A. could maintain a suit for the stipulated price. Appeal from tbe Circuit Court of tbe United States for tbe District of Iowa.

Held: that the agreement must be construed as extending the boundary line downwards through the dips of the veins or lodes wherever they may go in their course towards the centre of the earth. Error to tbe Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Nevada.